Suella Braverman has won the first stage of a legal battle over plans to turn a former military base into a camp housing 1,700 asylum seekers.
The home secretary declared the current shortage of asylum accommodation an “emergency” to bypass normal planning permission, and development has been started at former RAF Wethersfield without local consultation.
Braintree District Council applied for an injunction to stop the scheme and force the government to apply for planning permission in the normal way but on Friday, a judge ruled that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case.
Mr Justice Waksman said that while he did not have to formally rule on whether the current situation with asylum accommodation counted as an “emergency” to bypass planning laws, he found that: “There is a qualifying emergency here.”
“I would have found Class Q applies and there had been no breach of planning control,” he added. “This claim must be struck out.”
The judge granted Braintree council’s application to take the case to the Court of Appeal, saying the case raised “very important” points of law that that “may arise again in the current circumstances”.
Pointing to “plans imminently to develop this site and others”, he added: “It is important for local authorities and central government to know where they stand as soon as possible.”
The “Class Q” rule could allow the government to transform the former RAF Wethersfield base into a camp housing up to 1,700 asylum seekers, by using existing buildings and new “modular units”.
Ms Braverman’s lawyers confirmed that the same law could be used for similar programmes at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire and the former HMP Northeye prison in Sussex.
The council’s barrister, Wayne Beglan, had argued that the current situation was not an emergency under the meaning of the law used, and that ministers’ push to use military bases was “cost-driven”.
He questioned whether the Home Office’s desire to cut spending on hotels “creates an emergency situation within the meaning of [the law] such that all of the procedural safeguards identified are bypassed”.
The court heard that the Home Office expects to be supporting 120,000 to 140,000 asylum seekers by the end of this year and is “working on estimates of up to another 56,000 people arriving on small boats”, which would be a new record.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Home Office barrister Paul Brown KC said it was Ms Braverman’s “position that the situation generally is an emergency”.
He pointed to the increase in Channel crossings, record asylum backlog, government schemes for Afghan and Ukraine refugees, previous overcrowding at the Manston processing facility and a shortage of hotel places following the end of the Covid pandemic.
Mr Brown said there was “a need to find a longer term solution to what happened at Manston”, when thousands of people were unlawfully detained in the autumn and an asylum seeker died of diphtheria.
He argued that the situation “threatens homelessness”, which is one of the thresholds for declaring an emergency under planning laws, “if the secretary of state cannot provide accommodation”.
“If they are vulnerable or destitute they are more likely to suffer illness or death,” he added.
“There was a particular emergency at Manston and there is a very real anticipation that the situation, unless we can find a solution, will get worse.”
Mr Brown suggested that hotels may withdraw from Home Office contracts because they want other business, making the asylum seekers living there homeless, but provided no examples of that happening.
He confirmed the government is planning to use the same “Class Q” planning process for other planned asylum camps, including one at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire.
The government’s announcement last month sparked a furious backlash from Conservative MPs and councils, who argue they have not been properly consulted and that the chosen sites are unsuitable.
Under the separate Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the government is giving itself powers to bypass normal planning permission for asylum accommodation and other urgent developments “of national importance”.
